Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
09-12-2017, 12:42 PM | #1 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Of the Founding of Nargothrond and Gondolin
This is the first draft of the chapter Of the Founding of Nargothrond and Gondolin.
Our basis text is that of the Later Quenta Silmarillion given in HoME 11; page 177-180. Wherever the text is different from that this is marked by an editing mark. The markings are: NG-EX-xx for tracking the changes from QS to LQ2 (I did not bother with LQ1) as well as additions from the Grey Annals. Some conventions of my writing: Normal Text is from the basic text that is mentioned above (when I change the basic-Text it will be mentioned) Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalised text, normally only used for general changes <source example> = additions with source information ...... = This section of the paragraph is unchanged from the source. In LQ2 there were several names that were corrected to their final forms in the text, and these I have not commented on, as it seemed needlessly cumbersome. The names I have not marked are: Inglor > Finrod; Bladorion > Ard-galen; Gnomes > Noldor; Glomund > Glaurung; Nivrost > Nevrast; Finrod > Finarfin Quote:
NG-EX-02: change in LQ. NG-EX-03: This paragraph was replaced with the following. NG-EX-04: This footnote was inserted. I cannot remember if this is in fact 'later recounted.' Is this brought up at all in the Tale of Turin? The name Nulukkhizidun as well, was that used then? NG-EX-05: This was inserted. NG-EX-06: I have retained the most of the struck out note, simply because the sentence in the Grey Annals is nearly identical, and there is no replacement. NG-EX-07: This subheading was inserted along with the chapter heading. NG-EX-08: This was inserted. NG-EX-09: This was changed in LQ2. NG-EX-10: This was the only difference between the Grey Annals and QS account, so I added it. This section was exceedingly straightforward. So much so, in fact, that I feel I must have missed some other source of information. If anyone knows of any additions they think appropriate please help me out lol. |
|
09-26-2017, 01:53 PM | #2 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
I agree that this is a straight forward chapter. Nontheless I have a few remarks:
NG-EX-04: The name Nulukikhizidun is used in our Version in some form, but the story is not told in the way it should. The source I would recommend for this is HoMe 12; The Dwarvish origin of the name Felagund. And I think we have to incoperate it here in a way: Quote:
NG-EX-04.2: I added the linguistical part of this note into the footnote to the name. NG-EX-04.3: I think we should extant Tolkiens short hand. NG-EX-04.4: Since we are already in a footnote there is no way to put that as a note referring to a note, so we have to put it as a normal text of the footnote. NG-EX-04.5: The ‘?’ seems to refer to the fact that phaya is not a verb. So I removed both. NG-EX-04.6: Here I added the first part of the note, that has a more prose character. NG-EX-04.7: A simple update of the name. NG-EX-04.8: I think this forward reference has to go. NG-EX-04.9: I think we discussed this in another thread. It is later told that Galadriel lifed for a time in Nargothrond, so here never is too broad in reference. Respectfully Findegil |
|
09-26-2017, 05:06 PM | #3 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
These all look great! The last one about Galadriel never being in Nargothrond, I actually meant to change it, but in the process of compiling the draft it slipped my mind, thank you for catching it!
|
12-05-2017, 11:22 AM | #4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
In the Athrabeth and in the published Sil77, Finrod dwells in Minas Tirith until the Dagor Bragollach, when he removes to Nargothrond. Are we taking this as the final version? Or leaving it the way it is. I am inclined to leave it the way it is, since it makes more sense logistically for Finrod to make a whole city and then live there, as is said several times in the narrative.
|
12-08-2017, 03:19 PM | #5 |
Newly Deceased
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2
|
|
12-08-2017, 06:41 PM | #6 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
omg good catch Tyr!! Tolkien also used * as a root marker in later writings, so I'll change it to that.
|
12-09-2017, 08:38 AM | #7 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Good catch Tyr! I worked only from a scan and never checked the original text. So we can either let the sign stand or change it to 'root'. So I am inclinde to let it stand in this footnote.
ArcusCalion, the * [asterix] form is not really the same as a √ (even so in an artificial language the difference is only a fancy of the author): a √ is found in the recorded past of a language while the * form is only reconstructed by the 'loremasters'. Respectfully Findegil |
12-09-2017, 10:46 AM | #8 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Fin, this is true but in Q&E the form, for example, *KWENE is used for roots. In the Shibboleth notes on the sons of Feanor, the roots are simply capitalized, like PHIN. However, in Words, Phrases, and Passages, the roots are written with the radical, but the same roots are repeated in Q&E (a later document) with the asterisk, alongside reconstructed forms by loremasters also using an asterisk. Therefore it seems the published texts are inconsistent on the formation of these roots. We should standardize them. As you say, the asterisk is already used for the reconstructed forms, so perhaps we should go with the radical. If that is the case, then I think we need to standardize it across all documents, from the Shibboleth name notes to the Q&E material to the notes on PHAN and the Osanwe. In addition, in every other setting the roots are capitalized, so should we do that here with these two?
|
12-09-2017, 05:30 PM | #9 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
A standardisation is a good idea. And for me capitalisation is the better choice, since it would easiliy allow reconstrucetd roots by asterix and captalisation.
Respectfully Findegil |
06-01-2018, 06:30 PM | #10 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
While scouring Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn for any more bits I could use, I found something in Appendix E that I figured we were lacking at the moment: the translation and etymology of Celeborn's name. Therefore, as this is his first appearance in the narrative, I figured we could add it in here as a footnote, like so:
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2018, 06:04 PM | #11 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
NG-EX-04.93: Agreed.
Respectfully Findegil |
10-07-2018, 10:40 PM | #12 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 10-08-2018 at 09:07 AM. |
|
11-02-2018, 02:36 PM | #13 | ||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
While reading through Beren and Lúthien, I came upon this footnote in the chapter The Return of Beren and Lúthien According to the Quenta Noldorinwa:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 11-04-2018 at 12:55 PM. |
||
09-05-2023, 06:49 AM | #14 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Mîm’s dealing with Finrod
In the ‘new’ book The Nature of Middle-earth we find in Part Three: The World, its Lands, and its Inhabitants the chapter VII: The Founding of Nargothrond. The text that the editor Carl F. Hostetter provided is an extract of a text of JRR Tolkien dated to 1969. Hostetter has striped it ‘without indication’ of ‘many passages of primary linguistic and etymological matters’. As is to expected, this text has some influence on what we have edited so fare. Here is how I would combine it with our text:
Quote:
Findegil |
||
|
|